State v. Rowland

APPEAL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY Honorable William E.
Hickle, Circuit Judge

NANCY
STEFFEN RAHMEYER, P.J.

A jury
found Julian H. Rowland ("Defendant") guilty of
three separate offenses against Victim arising out of a
series of acts that were part of a single sexual assault in
June 2015. Defendant appeals raising four points.
Defendant's first three points assert that the evidence
was insufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find beyond a
reasonable doubt that Defendant used forcible compulsion to
commit the acts in question. Defendant's fourth point
claims that the trial court abused its discretion in the
admission of evidence. We reject Defendant's points, and
affirm the trial court's judgment.

Defendant
claims that there was insufficient evidence to permit a
finding of forcible compulsion in each of the charges against
him. Section 556.061(12), RSMo, Cum.Supp. 2013, provides:

"Forcible compulsion" means either:

(a) Physical force that overcomes reasonable resistance; or

(b) A threat, express or implied, that places a person in
reasonable fear of death, serious physical injury or
kidnapping of such person or another person[.]

"A
victim is not required to physically resist where she submits
to an offensive act out of fear of personal harm."
State v. Campbell, 143 S.W.3d 695, 699 (Mo.App. W.D.
2004). The existence of an implied threat is based on the
totality of the circumstances. See id. at 698-99
(affirming the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
finding beyond a reasonable doubt of an "implied
threat" based on the totality of the circumstances
including prior uses of force, threats and violence).
Defendant claims what is at issue in this case is an
"implied threat" because no weapon was used and no
direct threatening words were used at the time of the
assault.

"To determine whether the evidence presented was
sufficient to support a conviction and to withstand a motion
for judgment of acquittal, [[1] this Court does not weigh the evidence but
rather accept[s] as true all evidence tending to prove guilt
together with all reasonable inferences that support the
verdict, and ignore[s] all contrary evidence and
inferences." State v. Ess, 453 S.W.3d 196, 206
(Mo. banc 2015) (internal quotations omitted). This Court,
however, "may not supply missing evidence, or give the
[state] the benefit of unreasonable, speculative or forced
inferences." State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181,
184 (Mo. banc 2001) (internal quotations omitted). Evidence
is sufficient to support a conviction when "there is
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable [fact-finder]
might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt." State v. Coleman, 463 S.W.3d 353, 354
(Mo. banc 2015); see also Musacchio v. United
States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 709, 715, 193 L.Ed.2d
639 (2016).

State v. Clark, 490 S.W.3d 704, 707 (Mo. banc 2016)
(brackets in original except for footnote). Further,
"[i]nferences contrary to the verdict are disregarded
unless they are such a natural and logical extension of the
evidence that a reasonable juror would be unable to disregard
them." State v. Kopp, 325 S.W.3d 466, 467
(Mo.App. S.D. 2010) (internal quotations and citation
omitted).

In this
case, Victim, a customer service representative, was showing
Defendant an apartment for rent; she testified that, as she
opened the closet to show closet space, Defendant approached
her from behind and put his hands around her waist. She asked
him what he was doing and he replied, "something to the
extent of I just want to have a little fun or, want to have a
little fun?" Victim told him she was married and backed
away, even showing her wedding ring. Victim had not seen a
weapon but was concerned that he might have one and felt
"terrified", "like [she] couldn't
escape", "was afraid and alone in a vacant
apartment. And recently a realtor had been murdered in a
similar situation." As the situation progressed, Victim
was "[r]eally scared, " and "froze in
fear." Defendant then physically sexually assaulted her.

Victim
did not "fight back or anything" because she
"didn't think it would do any good." Victim
"just wanted to be safe and [she] was scared. And [she]
was trying to go to a different place in [her] head" -
she "was trying to be somewhere else." Victim did
tell Defendant "[n]o" and "[s]top"
"several times, " but Defendant ignored her
demands. Victim did not recall Defendant saying anything to
her during this time.

Defendant
claims that Victim's calmness and behavior after the
attack is evidence that Victim was not threatened and that
the sexual encounter was consensual. These claims ignore our
standard of review. The jury heard two conflicting accounts
of what occurred and believed Victim that the sex was not
consensual. Victim testified that she acted calmly because
she was in shock and did not know what to do. Victim
testified she "let [Defendant] in" her vehicle
because "if I had left him there my thought was, what if
he ran? What if he never got caught? I needed to let somebody
know." Victim drove Defendant back to her office, which
took about "two minutes, max." Victim did not call
911 because she "was still afraid he would hurt me. Or
-- I didn't know him. I didn't know his name."
When Defendant asked whether Victim "could get him a
deal on" the apartment where the sexual assault had
occurred, Victim used that question as a reason to call her
office, and ask for "George" - a predetermined code
word to be used "when you're in trouble or if you
need help." On the drive back to her office, Victim did
not "jok[e] or laugh[] with" Defendant. Victim
"couldn't believe what had just happened to
[her]"; she "was tearful, but at the same time
[she] was trying to hold it in because [she] ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.